tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 1, 2014 6:00pm-8:01pm EDT
sometimes at the pump and through our electric grid to now a country that gets to actually look and say oh, my gosh, look at the resources that we have right here in america and the resources that we have potentially with our partners and our allies, one of the strongest allies that we have in the world, canada, and an emerging -- an ally but emerging in its relationship with us, mexico. the north american continent, we think there is so much potential for canada, the u.s., and mexi mexico -- i do and others share this with me -- the potential to become completely not only energy independent but an energy powerhouse for the world, a world in which the north american continent at least really wants to promote freedom, democracy, human rights. senator cardin was just on the floor talking about how
important that issue is for our nation and world. he's given literally his life as an expert on human rights around the world and leading the helsinki commission and just talking with us about the importance of this and what's happening with the ukraine and in russia and in europe just recently. so you know, the issue of freedom and private enterprise and opportunity and education and energy self-sufficientry are goals that -- i mean, we pressure here. and it is possible for the rest of the world and our allies around the world. but what signal does it send if america is not willing to do its part when it comes to production right here in america and transporting oil and fall gas and other emerging fuels, alternative fuels, alternative
sources of electricity, when we're not doing our very best? so i know that it's contentious but i wanted to come to the floor to talk, senator hoeven i think gave a excellent defense of why the keystone pipeline is important. but i would just want to underscore in terms of jobs and the economy, but i just want to underscore the process, because there are a lot of democrats and others in my caucus, friends and colleagues that have said, well, you know, has the process been complete, has the process been thorough? i just want to review for the record a couple of very interesting things. and before i start on that, i want to point again, this is the keystone x.l. pipeline. there's already a -- quote -- "keystone pipeline" that's been constructed and operating for quite some time. this is an existing pipeline that is operating from canada down to the refineries in texas
technically but very close to the louisiana border. we are very proud of our industry in texas and louisiana, the refining capacity that we have, the ability to generate resources that this country and the world needs. and hopefully if we can open up exports appropriately, that is happening as we speak, permits that are being issued, the jobs that are creating here, the opportunity for creating jobs in every one of our 50 states, including hawaii and alaska and our territories and in our first nations, as they're called, in our tribal territories is -- is just -- it's almost without peer in the last several decades. but this x.l. pipeline is an alternative route and it's been debated for quite some time and there have been these permits that i'm going to talk about in a minute that have been reviewed.
and put that into the record, because there's some concern. you know, have we really reviewed what we need to? have the environmental studies been met? so into the record i want to put april 16, 2010, the department of state issued its draft environmental impact statement. it opened for a 40-day comment period which extended for an additional days. then a year later, april 15, 2011, the department of state issued a supplemental draft environmental impact statement. open for another 45 days. at that time, there were 285,000 communities were received. those comments -- 285 comments were received. those comments were read, responded to and absorbed into the process. august 26 of that year, 2011, the department of state issued its final environmental impact statement and opened up an additional 90-day review. the agency continued to accept
public comments. then on march 1, 2013, the u.s. state department issued a supplemental environmental impact statement for the keystone pipeline presidential permit application, which includes the proposed new route through nebraska -- because there was some questions earlier in the process whether it should go through nebraska or not. and let me say as long as i support the -- as strong as i support the keystone pipeline, i also support states, whether it's louisiana, texas, virginia, nebraska or north dakota, to make determinations according to their own laws and their own constitutions about the takings of private property, which is sometimes required for projects like this. those processes cannot be shortchanged and they cannot be ignored. and one of the court cases right now in nebraska was because the courts have ruled this, the governor there overstepped his
bounds and he, according to the court in nebraska, took actions that were contrary to the law in nebraska and to the constituti constitution. so these laws i am not dismisssive of, the rules and regulations, so nebraska still has some issues that have to be resolved. but the rest of the pipeline to the south here has already been constructed. this is being worked on. there are other parts of the pipeline that can be started while nebraska finishes up its very legitimate decisions between its courts, its public service commission and its legislature about the issues in nebraska which, let me say, the landowners have valid concerns and the courts have ruled so. but, nevertheless, on january 31, 2014, this year, the state department issued again its final supplemental environmental
impact statement for the permit application confirming that the project is safe and will have limited environmental impacts. the report reflected that trans-canada has agreed to incorporate 59 special safety conditions recommended by the pipeline safety commission. so to my colleagues that say, you know, have we given ample time to review? i would say the answer is clearly yes. is it time to build the pipeline? yes. and should we get about a vote on the senate floor to express strong support for a piece of america's infrastructure, north american infrastructure that is critical to the future growth of our economy and to the promise of opportunity, economic opportunity for our citizens? i think the answer to that is yes. this group of democrats, of which the chair is part of,
senator warner from virginia has been working on this now for several years. one other point i'd like to ma make. the comparison here of other pretty well-known and very large public works projects or private developments -- some of them are public and some of them are private -- that have been constructed. the hoover dam, you know, very well-known. it took five years to complete, from 1931-1936. from design to completion, planning, design, completion, five years. the pentagon took two years to complete, from 1941-1943. the space shuttle discovery took four years to complete, from 1979-1983. the ambassador bridge between the u.s.a. and canada, three years to complete. i mean, design, build and complete.
from 1927-1929. the theodore roosevelt, four years to complete, 1968-1972. i mean, america and canada and together we've been building major projects for many years, complicated, tough projects that require tremendous cooperation between agencies, environmental protection rules and regulatio regulations, meeting citizens' concerns. this is not new that we've done -- this is not anything new. we've been doing this in america for a long time. it is time to stop studying and stop waiting and start building this keystone x.l. pipeline. now, again, the legislation that we have introduced today, senator hoeven, senator landrieu and 10 other democrats and many -- and several other republicans to build this
pipeline would simply say that it is time to stop studying, start building. with all due respect, the process is complete. we just acknowledge, the process is done. and we also acknowledge that there is still an outstanding issue in nebraska. nothing in this bill will affect the court decisions, the time frame in nebraska. but what it will send is a signal that this other section can start to be built and constructed. and then, of course, nebraska will take, we don't know, it could be six months, it could be a year. we don't know when that process will finally be resolved. but we can start now. it's going to take several years for this to be completed. if we wait another year, it's just pushing this even further back for no good reason. let me mention a third argument. i think that some people are
under the mistaken impression that this is maybe the first time that we've built infrastructure with canada, that nothing could be further from truth. there are a hundred cross-border permits that have already been approved for oil and natural gas and electric transmission facilities crossing the u.s.-mexico or u.s.-canadian border. of these, a hundred are 21 oil pipelines crossing the border. so this is just such a basic important point of building infrastructure between canada, america, and mexico that some of us that support these kinds of things fairly routinely are really having difficulty understanding why five years and five permits and five reviews is
not satisfactory to build something that has been basically built multiple times before. some people may say, oh, but the difference is this is connecting the oil sands. the oil sands in canada are a -- a very important resource not just for canada but for the united states. i'm glad these oil sands are here as opposed to venezuela. or i'm glad the oil sands are here as opposed to cuba. i'm glad the oil sands are here as opposed to in the middle of russia, with everything else they have. i'm happy that canada has resources. i'm happy. they're our friend and a neighbor and close to us. and i'm also really impressed with canada's environmental standards, which are, by my calculations, not in-depth but just a broad review after speaking to so many industry and government leaders there, very
rigorous. and i don't think there's anyone in this chamber that would -- would counter that. it's well-known and understood that canada has very high standards. they understand, accept climate change. they believe that carbon is affecting the climate. they are doing -- in a negative way. they believe that they can reduce the amount of carbon coming out. they are sensitive to that. but they know what we know, that the world is going to need oil and gas for decades to come. it is not going to stop in five years or ten years. we need oil and gas for decades. why not use our own? why not use the oil and gas from canada, america and mexico, creating jobs right here at home instead of importing it from places around the world that we don't even get along with? or places around the world that don't share our values?
or places around the world that can use the price of oil or gas to hurt our economy? why don't we take charge of our own economy? so when some people complain about the oil sands in canada, i'm, frank willing, glad they're -- frankly, glad they're there and glad we can tap into them with cleaner, new technologies and have oil and gas for this country which has a very, very bright future. so with the reviews -- five over five years -- hundreds of thousands of comments from business, industry, citizens, environmental groups that have been taken into consideration, the department of state has issued its final review and that final review said it is safer and more environmentally -- more
environmentally in tune with our environmental rules and regulations to transport this oil through pipeline than through rail or highway. and for those of us that live in places that do a lot of production, i mean, we always say we're proud of the industry and we are. the industry makes mistakes and when they mess up, they have toe clean up. but i also have to say that i am very conscious, as most americans are, of the -- the traffic on our highways, of the backups on our rail system. i hear complaints from our businesses, we can't get our products fast enough so here we have a chance to 0 move a commodity under ground save through a pipe but know if we don't build this pipeline, it's going to move by rail or truck which congests our highways, congests our rail lines and causes even more impact to our
environment. i think the record is clear, i think the arguments are in, i think there is no question that this is the right thing for the environment, the right thing for the country. clearly in the united states' interest, and this will benefit not just the gulf coast, where the re refineries are but it is going to create jobs through our entire country and suppliers to this project exist everywhere. there's a terrific map that i've showed before where suppliers from all over the country are providing either labor support for the construction of this pipeline and much other similar infrastructure in the nation. we've already got 2.9 million miles of pipeline in america. this final -- not final but this piece that we're speaking about today is a thousand miles. we've already got 2.9 million
miles of pipe. yes, some of it needs to be upgraded, yes, not every inch of it is safe, we're working on that but this is probably going to be the safest pipeline ever built in the history of america. it's been reviewed so many times. i mean i can't wait to look at the details of what's been required. i'm positive that it's going to be the safest pipeline ever built. it's taken five years to build it. so that is what our bill does, i thank senator hoeven, i end with thanking the democrats who have joined with me to support keystone pipeline. i i thank the caucus for at least the opportunity hopefully to have -- we will introduce this bill tonight, hopefully we can get a vote on this bill. and let me say that the vote will be in connection with the energy efficiency bill that will also be brought to the floor, and the reason as chair of the
energy committee that i think that's so important is because while neither one represents a comprehensive energy plan for the country, which i hope to develop with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and have just stepped into this position the last, you know, month, but these are two important energy-related pieces that need resolution. the energy efficiency bill has now been worked on by senator shaheen and senator portman, bipartisan, for five years. almost as long as the keystone pipeline has been under consideration by the administration. we've had an energy efficiency bill worked on by republicans and democrats that will create thousands of private-sector jobs. it is supported by the -- the business roundtable, the real estate roundtable, the chamber of commerce, labor leaders all
over our country, business -- building owners, retail establishments. the energy efficiency bill is a terrific piece of legislation. again, it came out of our committee 18-3. there are very few things that come out of the energy committee that are impactful. there are little bills that come out that don't mean much to anybody, might come out unanimously, means a lot to the person sponsoring it but it doesn't have national impact. this energy efficiency bill has international and national implications, all positive. senator shaheen has been just a champion of trying to bill bring this bill to the floor and we have been rebuffed and rebuffed and rebuffed by the republican side for no reason because some of them wanted to debate health care, some of them wanted to debate iran sanctions. i said let's just talk about energy. it's important for the country to focus at least a few hours of
the united states senate attention on energy. america's focused on it. they want it to be affordable, they want it to be as clone as possible, and -- clean as possible and they don't want to have to buy it from countries that they don't share values with and don't appreciate. they want less imports to america, more domestic production of alternatives and oil and gas. so let's get about that business. so efficiency is basically doing a lot more, a lot more with a lot less, saving taxpayers and saving huge sums of money. the example that everyone is becoming more familiar with is the empire state building in new york. just an extraordinary private-sector effort to take one of our most iconic buildings that we all know, many millions of americans have actually
visited, taken an old building that was constructed in the 1930's, retooling it with private money, not -- not public grants, private money and saving the building owners and the tenants of that building millions and millions of dollars, as an example of what can be done in commercial buildings throughout this country. and that needs to be unleashed with the legislation that jeanne shsheen -- jeanne shaheen, this bill that senator portman and senator shaheen have carefully put together and senator wyden when he was chair with senator murkowski's help, got it out of the committee. i committed when i stepped into the leadership of the committee to build on their good work and to do my very best to get that bill to the floor, and we have an energy bill with keystone. and i thought the two of them working together, republican and democrat, we could get a
good compromise by working on both of them at the same time. we're capable of doing it. they're clearly broadly supported. it will help create jobs in america, and will begin two important steps. not the only -- there are other things that coon done. people come to me and say we could do this, we could do that. yes, we can work on coal, on propane. i had a hearing on propane today. we can work on additional rail for the country, we can work on pipeline safety, we can work on alternative fuels, on strengthening our relationship with israel and china, work on new kinds of automobiles. but that is for another day. we cannot do all of it at one time. but what we can do is what's before us. we can do what is before us. and we can do what is clearly timely, the energy efficiency bill for five years has been waiting for action by this senate. the house has already passed an
energy efficiency bill. the pipeline has been waiting five years, been reviewed five times. it is time to move forward on both. and create the kind of jobs for america we need. high-paying middle-class jobs and begin to help really build america and north america as the energy powerhouse that it can be, doing it together. recognizing, you know, the transport of oil and gas and production is important but also alternatives and focusing on efficiency and conservation, which many of our democrats are very proud of the work in that area. so, mr. president, i'm sorry to keep the senate, i think i might be the last speaker of the evening, but i thank the leadership for providing the time and, again, just want to thank senator hoeven for his partnership and i don't see any speakers so i will yield the floor.
mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the call of the quorum be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, is s. 2262 now pending? the presiding officer: it is. mr. reid: motion to proceed to it, is that right? the presiding officer: that is correct. mr. reid: i have a cloture motion that i would ask be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 368, s. 2262, a bill to promote energy savings
in residential buildings and industry and for other purposes ux signed by 17, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. reid: i ask the mandatory quorum under rule 2 be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the senate now proceed to a period of morning business, senators be allowed to speak for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i'm told that s. 2280 is ready for its first reading. the presiding officer: that is correct. the clerk will read the title of the bill for the first time. the clerk: s. 2280, a bill to approve the keystone x.l. pipeline. mr. reid: i ask for a second reading but object to my own request. the presiding officer: objection having been heard. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the -- the presiding officer: the bill will receive its second reading on the next legislative day. mr. reid: sorry about that. it's only the 45th time that i have interupted the chair on this. i'm so sorry.
maybe sometime i will get it right. the presiding officer: apology is heard. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on monday, may 5. following the prayer and pledge, the morning business be deemed expired. the journal of proceedings be approved to date. time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. following any leader remarks, the senate proceed -- following any leader remarks, the senate be in a period of morning business until 5:30 with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each. at 5:30, the senate will proceed to executive session under the previous order. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: there will be two roll call votes monday at 5:30. if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on monday, may 5. the.
we will talk to kate may 5. the. tummarello. first, taking a look at a new .ook on c-span joining us is emmanuel touhey. guest: it is our eighth collection here. it is to share the stories c-span has covered over the years. and sunday evening program became it q and 15 years later. >> and it became q&a 15 years later. so the stories have been told over the years are worth
bringing from the screen to the printed page and sharing them. >> host: so what is in the book, "sundays at eight"? what stories are you telling? >> guest: there is a depth and breadth that perhaps there have been two previous books. number sections. five sections in the book beginning with stories. media society, money and politics in post-9/11 america. the chapters themselves -- the book form itself and cheap itself in the story senate are kind of a reflection of times in the depth and breadth of both book notes and q&a over the years. >> host: what is the format of the book and how did it come together? >> with both book notes and q&a, it is basically a q&a show where you have one guest for one hour and you go through an in-depth discussion on whether it is a
public policy issue, personal story history what have you. what we did was take out the questions. the questions are there to facilitate answers and they fade away at a certain point and the answers are what matters. what we have done with a minimal amount is basically the issue is let it speak for itself. let the viewer and reader will get in this book is basically the answers and their outwards. >> host: so what are some of your favorite tories? >> guest: it was a path of discovery for the team working on this, but there's so many fascinating stories. just to mention one in particular, the editor and publisher of blackjack.com. she was talking about her politics in virginia and how she
was influenced by her parents. one of the things we all know is the rosa parks moment. she declined to name you history unfolding. well, she said when she learned out that story, her mother said to her, before that happened i had mailed rosa parks moment. she said what do you mean? she said well, i got on a bus in richmond and went to the back of the buses i was supposed to do and i sat down and older white gentlemen got on the bus and asked me to give up my seat. what he wanted to do? and at the back of the bus. what you had wrapped up in that moment his personal history, politics and that's basically what the program is about as an extension of everything we do here at the spin.
it is a candid moment an extended interview and reveal something about the guess that was fascinating also something about our country and country's history. >> host: where can people learn more about the book and watch some of these interviews have taken place over the years? >> guest: you can watch all the interviews if you go to c-span.org/sundays at 8:00. you can see all the interviews. 41 and you can click on any of the names they are in a bill to watch the whole program. their transcripts for those who want to see how the program and interviews unfold and you can watch clips if you have wikipedia pages you can watch those and read about the authors themselves and if it websites you can look at that with twitter accounts and so on and so forth. quite a lot of information they have people find it useful and interesting. >> host: sundays at 8:00 am a 25 years of stories and q&a in book notes.
people can buy it now. what happens to the royalties for this book? >> guest: royalties go to the educational foundation we have here is c-span. i think it's important this was a collaborative effort as you well know from your own work is c-span, you wear a lot of hats. a lot of people involved in this process from people that make the program have been two people who edit the interviews that work with brian to make it all come together. all the proceeds go back into the continuation of the work that c-span does and that's basically the educational foundation. >> host: emmanuel touhey was c-span's digital web editor, thank you very much. the book is "sundays at eight."
>> on wednesday in the british house of commons in 19 mccammon offered condolences to the families of five british soldiers killed in afghanistan and discuss economic sanctions against russia. this is 40 minutes. >> host: >> order. questions to the prime minister. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i'm sure the whole house would like to join me in paying tribute to captain thomas clark in the army air corps, rockish rockish talent of joint helicopter command aria sodium maki or an officer class dispenser falconer of army air corps. corporal james walters of the army air corps and the
intelligence corps, a reserves who worked as research assistant. these tragic deaths remind us of the continued commitment and sacrifice of our armed forces and i know that our deepest sympathies are with their families at this very, very difficult time. i am sure the whole house would also join me in paying tribute to dan mcguire who was shot to death in her of its classroom on monday. it is clear from the tributes paid that she was a much loved teacher that worked at the school for over 40 years. she cares so much about her pupil should come in on her day off to help prepare them for exams. our thoughts are with her family, her friends in the entire school community feared we been left devastated by this truly shocking and appalling tragedy. the criminal investigation is underway and everything that commitment to get the bottom of what happened will be done.
mr. speaker this morning at meetings with colleagues and others in addition to duties in this house i shall have her there means later today. >> i very much associate myself with a tribute to the serviceman who lost their lives in afghanistan last week and to mcguire who lost her life in the classroom situation you spoke about. can i ask you about something different? last week the institute for fiscal studies revealed the government's decision to triple tuition fees will cost taxpayers more than the system it replaced? is this disastrous policy a symbol of the long-term economic plan? >> enabled is another expansion of higher education. that is what we are seen under this government had all the forecast, the fewer people would apply to university, those are wrong. people from low-income backgrounds when applied to university. those four counts around. unlike other countries who put
in place a system for tuition fees that and we could expand our universities and when the global race. >> mr. roger williams. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i would like to thank all house are paying tributes to the five men who recently died in afghanistan. in particular pay tribute to lance corporal oliver thomas who worked for me in westminster. he was an outstanding young man who was so well liked and held in such high regard by everyone who knew him and worked with him. the las vegas particularly heavy on his family and indeed his friends who grew up with him. i am sure the prime minister would want to join me in praising allah reservist who like all the risks that are armed forces six and then sometimes suddenly pay the ultimate price. >> my honorable friend is absolutely right to pay tribute
to lance corporal thomas. it is a reminder of the sacrifices we have born in afghanistan. this looks as if it was a tragic accident to get to the bottom of what happened. that is absolutely right to mention how reservist in all three forces serve alongside regular colleagues and take all the risks in afghanistan they've proved again and again that they are people of huge quality, ability encourage good as we go forward and expand our reserves, i hope everyone in our country, particularly businesses, public sector, local councils and others will do everything they can to make sure reservists are welcome in their businesses and supported in the vital work they do for our country. >> mr. speaker, i want to join the prime minister in paying tribute to captain thomas clark of army had corps from a joint helicopter command, acting or an
officer class to dispenser falconer of army air corps. corporal james walters of army air corps and lance corporal oliver thomas said the intelligence corps who was tragically killed. easter speaker come in these deaths are tragic and poignant reminder of the sacrifices made by our armed forces including reservists serving our country with bravery and distinction. all of our thoughts go to the friends of those we lost, including honorable member we share your thoughts and deepest sympathy to the families of those killed. i also like to join the prime minister, mr. speaker in paying tribute to the teacher who was murdered in her classroom on monday. this was an appalling tragedy. it is clear from the testimonies of those who have spoken out since she died that she was an inspiration to those she taught and all of our thoughts are with her family, friends and teachers and pupils at the school. mr. speaker, yesterday for the
first time we got to know the names of investors including hedge fund who given preferential access than one third of all male shares. mr. speaker, how are these features? >> what we are talking about is an exercise in privatizing the mail that has been a success for our country, a business that lost a billion pounds under labor has now paid money back to the taxpayer is making profit and the people we should be praising at the 140 employees of royal mail are now under this government shareholders in the business they work for. >> answer the question to mr. speaker. the prices for that 50% of the level it was sold at only he would want congratulation for this in the taxpayer 1 billion pounds. now, now, each of these shows
and investors were given on average 18 times more shares than other bidders on the basis of the national order, they will provide a stable long-term shareholder base. in the words of the business secretary, not the speculators. can the prime minister tell us what assurances in return for their gold ticket these investors gave us to hold the shares for the long-term? >> first of all, he says before giving shares. they pay for shares. second, the races again this issue that there was some sort of agreement. there was no agreement. at the end of the day, he should be recognizing that a business that lost money, that he tried in government to privatize the failed is now in the private sector, making money, succeeding for country and its employees and shareholders. isn't it interesting that with the growth in our economy, the
unemployment production deficit is reduced local labor to complaining about a successful privatization? [shouting] >> now, mr. speaker. i'm raising an issue about a ripoff off of the taxpayer. the reason this matters -- the reason this matters -- the reason this matters is because -- >> the orchestra to bear canister are predictable and incredibly tedious and it won't stop us getting through. calm down. >> casillas grossly undervalued. over 1.9 billion runners on privatization now worth 2.7 billion who cashed in mr. speaker? 12 of the 16 so-called long-term investors made a killing with hundreds of millions of pounds within weeks. now yesterday -- yesterday the
representative bank that sold the shares said there was an understanding, and i quote, with those investors. he said there was no nurse tending on the record, mr. speaker. those investors about the long-term commitment to royal mail. so why were they allowed to make a fast buck? >> we are giving lectures on taxpayer value for the people who sold our nation's gold in the market? [shouting] he talks about -- he talks about ripping off the taxpayer whenever they see their last and 11% budget that facet of the banking a lot in britain's history. mr. speaker, these are exactly the arguments that michael first made about the privatization of the national corporation. dgc exactly the same arguments made about british airways? it pleases the back benches. it excites the trade unions, but
it is utterly, utterly meaningless. if he recommitting to renationalize in the post office? no, of course not. it's just plain to the gallery because he can't talk about the success of our economy. >> mr. speaker, mr. speaker, you should listen to members of his own side. the members are not themselves. what did he say yesterday? this privatization had let people down in the interest of the taxpayer or not taken into account. he called it unethical and immoral and he is nodding his head, mr. speaker. now, he talks about the postal workers. he sacked about the postal workers, mr. speaker. so this is very interesting. no conditions on the hedge funds, but there were conditions on other trips while the postal workers. can he explain why postal workers were told they couldn't
sell their shares for three years, but hedge funds were told they could cash in on day one? [shouting] >> the post office workers were given their shares and it's right they were given their shares. to celebrate the popular capitalism. let's celebrate. i believe an empowered workers. we've now got 140,000 workers who's got their shares. in terms of the risk to the taxpayer, he had to reflect. >> order. far too much noise in the chamber. mr. hacker, i say you're an illustrious product. [shouting] >> i cannot believe that they taught you dare to behave like that. prime minister. >> easter speaker, mr. speaker, you are right that there's a lot of history in the shouting
because of course in the past, with all this privatization we had the shouting of the chemex, the shouting of the prescott, the shouting of the straws. ..you. it's the same families with the same message. it is literally the same old labour but that is what is happening. no, he asked about -- [laughter] he asked about taxpayer value. this is what the national order -- audit office said privatization has reduced taxpayer risk to support the universal postal service. this is a good deal for taxpayers because of this business was losing a built-in. it is now making money, paying taxes, gaining in value, good for our country but bad for labour. >> ed miliband. >> the post office is making a profit when they privatized. what we discovered today is one rule for the postal workers and
another rule for the hedge funds. and mr. speaker, who rode these hedge funds? they've been very coy. none other than the chancellors test man. so why is it mr. speaker, it's one rule if you deliver the chancellors best man's speech, and it's another rule if you deliver the chancellors profits? >> what this shows, mr. speaker, he can't talk about the deficit because it's falling. he can't talk about the economy because it's growing. he can't talk about jobs because there are one and a half million more people in work. so he is painting himself into the red corner by only talking about issues that are actually successes for the government but appeal to the trade union, the left-wingers behind them and the people who want to play the politics of envy. that's what's happening in british politics. everyone can see it. nothing to say about the long-term economic plan that
shows britain is on the rise and labour is on the slide. >> and mr. speaker, what we know is there's a cost-of-living crisis in this country worst -- oh, oh, they don't figure the cost-of-living crisis. why not? because they stand up for the wrong people. the more we know about this privatization the bigger the fiasco it is. and national asset sold at a knockdown price. a sweetheart deal for the city, and the government bungled of the sale. everything about this privatization stinks. [shouting] >> not a mention of gdp. not a mention of what happened while we were a way in terms of employment figures. non-eviction of the fact that deficit is getting better. we know, mr. speaker, he's got in his advisor from america. yes, he has, mr. axelrod and this is what he is giving advice is a. let me share because i think this is excellent advice. he says this, there's a better
future ahead of us but we must not go backwards to policies that put us in this mess in the first place. [shouting] >> i don't know what the opinion -- >> order, order. order. [laughter] [shouting] >> in response to that question the prime minister has finished and he can take it from me that he is finished. >> mr. speaker, from the cyber attack on estonia to the invasion of georgia to recent events in the crimea we have seen a clear pattern of behavior from the kremlin, and the west has allowed itself to allow wishful thinking to take the
place of analysis. given that defense exports from the eu to russia have amounted to about 700 million euros in the last three years not counting the 1.2 billion of the french warships, isn't it about time we were talking about eu sanctions and? >> i think by right honorable friend is right on this issue. we have set out a clear set of sanctions in terms of russia's behavior toward ukraine. we have taken a series of steps so far in terms of putting asset freezes and travel bans on named individuals. we take an acer is a diplomatic and other steps and we've set out the so-called stage three sanctions that we think should be taken if further destabilization of ukraine are set out and we do believe that restrictions on arms sales should certainly be part of that. >> mr. speaker, the prime minister promised by the end of this parliament a third of the cabinet would be women. we know the former cultural secretary had to go.
does he agree with the new culture secretary that this is because government appointment should always be made on merit? >> what i said was i wanted to see a third of my front bench ministers being women at the end of a conservative government. we have made some important progress in terms of the numbers of people on the front bench. i have to say with respect to my coalition partner in terms of cabinet members, the liberal democrats need to do a bit more people to wait on this issue but i hope you make further progre progress. >> to the subject of royal mail, as the leader of the firm which brought british gas to the
market, and as the offer of -- [inaudible] may i tell the prime minister that the questions, the criticisms the way the royal mail launched was handled by party opposite those -- shows their total ignorance of the city markets. [shouting] >> the fact is that when you're trying to make an immense sale, you have to take trouble to find people who are to underwrite it, and they are not able to prophesies what stock markets are going to be like a week ahead. and, therefore, the whole way, the prudent way in which to
handle is for a sensible. it does if you are -- [inaudible] >> order, order. people are shouting. i know -- >> if you -- [laughter] if you fail, those institutions responsible for its launch are ruined. [shouting] >> the right minister. >> he makes an important point because when you're privatizing state-owned industries, if you sell them for less than the price set outcome it is written off as a failure and if you settle for anything more than the price you are accused of undervaluing the business. that has always been the way. as i said that is what labour said with respect to british airways, british telecom, british aerospace. they oppose every single move to build a strong competitive of private investors sector in our country, and that continues today.
>> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. mitchum would like to be a policeman buddies only working part-time and can't afford the thousand pound bobby taxing each day to apply to join the met. his mom and dad are foster cares and they would like to give it to him if they had. is -- if my constituent is people of passing the fitness and test requirements of the police why should his bank balance stop him? went to become a metropolitan police officer become an aspiration for the few rather than the many? >> the honorable lady is as questions about what she calls a bobby taxing let me make three points. it is not a tax. secondly, it is not a barrier to recruitment and thirdly recruitment is taking place in the metropolitan police. that is what's happening. we are seeing people being recruited. as is happening members who want to join the metropolitan police are able to get assistance with this qualification that they now
require. >> mr. speaker, last week -- [inaudible] here in your apartment last night young scholars painted the scene from shakespeare's work. mr. speaker, could this right honorable man, the captain of our state, make our national -- [inaudible] a national day? and cookie choose to tell before the house what shakespeare means to an? >> can i thank the ottawa friend for the beautifully and really crafted question about the anniversary of shakespeare's birth? it is a moment for celebration not just here in britain but all across the world where shakespeare's works are getting a wider and wider understanding and education. i will attempt the quotes he is
brought out in his question but i was a to any politician if you read henry v speech, if that doesn't inspire and dry the on i can't think what does. >> thank you, mr. speaker. when will he published the relations they produced standard packaging for tobacco products? >> i can't prejudge the queen's speech but we said we want to take action on this front and we will. >> thank you, mr. speaker. textile engineering, food and drink manufacturing are all blooming -- booming. for example, fabrics are producing the of wall street for master buses which have been very, very busy this week because they are grading jobs at apprenticeships. will the prime minister praise them and all the other local firms that agreed to attend my first ever jobs fair on friday the 20th of june?
>> first let me make it to my on welfare for holding his job fairs, a number of members of parliament have taken this approach and it's in real benefits in local areas as you get businesses coming forward pledging apprenticeship, pledging to take people on and you can bring them together with people who are looking for work. what we've seen since the recess is a series of figures in our economy, growth now running at over 3%, 1.5 million of our fellow countrymen and women in work since this government came to power. inflation now at a five year low, this is confidence at its highest level since the early 1970s. there's still more work to do, absolutely no complacency. the long-term economic plan is not completed but it is well on its way. >> before he was elected, the prime minister said that if they let me he would put a -- [inaudible] making use of the cheapest most developed form of renewable energy. last week he announced his party wants to add support for onshore
wind. 70% of the public to support a. what changed his mind? >> what has changes with seeing a massive increase of onshore wind in our country. we will achieve with what is in the planning system and under construction approaching 10% of our electricity demand provided by onshore wind. i think the question then is is a right to continue to overrule local planners and local people and the continued -- to put taxpayer money and have to build that onshore wind? i don't believe it is. the manifesto will make it very clear for local communities to see. of the parties will have to make their own choices. >> in the last few weeks, over 160 million pounds of private investors was announced. we vetted 3000 new of friendship since the new election. in short --
[inaudible] does the prime minister agree with me that as recourse goes, pay follows the? >> i'm glad to hear he is leading the way, particularly on apprentices. where we are it is not 1.6 million apprentices have started under this government, our target is 2 million. we would see a particular expansion of higher level of apprenticeship schemes but it is a major part of the living our long-term economic plan. >> thank you, mr. speaker but i'm sure the prime minister read last week's excellent report by the all party group which is set out how consumers are getting a raw deal from the secondary market. the question is, mr. speaker, whose side is the prime minister on? >> i haven't seen the report the honorable lady mentioned. i will have a look at it and i will discuss it with my right
honorable friend who i welcome to the cabinet, who i think, labour seems to criticize the point but i'm not quite sure on what basis they were doing the. i think you are doing an excellent job for our country. very happy to study the report she mentioned. >> a number has fallen 25% in the last year but they're still so much more to do. i'm hosting a jobs fair this friday. >> here, here. >> in the light of -- [inaudible] what else is government doing to make it a reality? >> what we've seen already is 1.7 million private sector new jobs created, far outstripping the loss of public sector jobs so there are one and have been people altogether. we seen an increase in full-time work.
in terms of driving further employment growth i think the clear message to businesses you've got the 2000 pounds on financial insurance bill which i think can help people to take on the employment. the cuts do business with someone shops is also very welcomed, and from next year anyone under the age of 21, you won't have to any national insurance, contradictions at all. we want to see more people in work and rais to raise even fort level of aspiration in our country. >> mr. speaker, nuclear power is a very important component of our energy mix because it produces large amounts of electricity with very little co2. this government called itself the green is government ever. what will his government do to ensure that nuclear power stations such as hinckley point which is already five years behind schedule, is online on time?
>> i have to say to the honorable gentleman i'm sure he has a constituency interest in this because the northwest is very important energy assets for our country. the last labour government was in power for 13 years but can never build a nuclear power station nor make any progress on moving towards doing it. under this government we have hinckley point going ahead, the most exciting development. i believe there is opportunity of more to come. that is what we're doing putting our money where our mouth is and making sure we have nuclear power providing high quality base load power which is carbon free. >> thank you, mr. speaker. business confidence is returning, unemployment is falling come more new jobs are coming to my constituency. most of that relies on infrastructure spending, financed by private pension funds. does my right honorable friend share my regard the labour's raid on retirement funds, the brainchild of the shadow chancellor, an estimated two
amounted to 118 billion pounds last week, not only racked private pension but hobbled by private sector infrastructure that was in our country for a generation? >> i'm delighted to hear about the effect you got employment rising, unemployment falling, more people taking on apprenticeships and businesses expanding. that is what we see across our country and decisive in 20 minutes into prime minister's question not a single labour member of parliament has been turn gdp unemployment, growth in the country our economic plan. they don't want to talk about our economy because they can see it's getting better under this government. >> will the prime minister make representation in relations -- that have been held under house arrest in saudi arabia for more than 10 years? would he agree with me that
human rights and women's rights should be our priorities and our relationship with saudi arabia the? >> i read the report as she did and i share her concern and i will look into it further. in terms of our relations with all countries, we do give a proper party for human rights and to the rule of law and we raise these issues with all countries that we meet with. >> could i gently tell the prime minister the liberal democrat women not only pull their weight but perfect a ready and willing to push their way. i recently -- [shouting] i recently hosted -- [inaudible] the culture and what can be done to build up women in its name. i know the issues, forced an
early marriage are important to my right honorable friend. so would he please consider viewing the film and showcasing on these issues that he's hosting in july? >> i think the honorable lady first of all can i thank her for the work that she does particularly on women and enterprise with a business department i think is widely important to the point i was making is i know all parties in this house want to see greater gender equality and representation, present incumbent and the rest of it, and all parties have made progress. my party has made progress and there's more we want to do, specifically on her concerns about preventing sexual violence in conflicts, we are taking huge steps this year in raising the profile of those issues. i pay tribute to the leadership shown by the foreign secretary. also the country that has met its targets in terms of 1.7% of aid going to gdp going in aid. we are able to push this item right up the agenda which we will do over the course of this
year. >> thank you, mr. speaker. yesterday ukrainians in scotland wrote expressing disgust and astonishment as the first mission statement. will be prime minister support the statement of the scottish ukrainian committee and state and labour and condemning those statements which support, which support a regime which oppress his a minority group and silences its critics? >> i agree wholeheartedly with the honorable lady. i think what alex salmond said was a major error of judgment. i think all of us in this house should be supporting the ukrainian desire to be a sovereign independent country and to have the respect of international community, and party leader for that ambition. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this morning i met with just jumpstart who is a charity.
will my friend congratulate the council of worked with myself and my honorable friend, a year committing 75,000 pounds to a program of up to 50 committee public access defibrillators that will save lives? >> this sounds like an excellent campaign. we have as a country taken a lot of steps forward in terms of making sure this sort of equipment is more readily available because if you can find people who suffered a heart attack quickly, you can save lives in those golden minutes in that golden hour when it first strikes. i it sounds like an excellent idea and i join him in paying tribute. >> over the last 12 months the use of food banks has increased by 93%. social landlords, read her rates have gone up by 84%. will be prime minister except
that the governments own policies are driving up debt and poverty? >> what i would say to the honorable gentleman is clearly the best route out of poverty is work and we should welcome the fact there are one and a half million more people in work. if you look at the figures of course he is right that food bank usage has gone up not least because food banks are not properly advertised and promoted, not least by java center plus but also by local authorities. if he wants to deal in facts, the oecd has shown the proportion of people struggling to buy food in the uk has actually fallen since before labour's great recession. i know that members opposite want to make this argument about policy and inequality in britain but the fact is that statistics don't back them up. inequality has fallen compared to when they were in office. there are few people in both the poverty and fewer children in relative poverty. the picture they want to paint because they can't paint a
picture about economy that isn't going, they can't paint a picture about people not getting jobs. the picture they're trying to paint is wholly false. >> with the service sector, with the manufacturing sector and with the construction and manufacturing sector all growing at 3% plus, with the prime minister agree the economy is well on the road to recovery and rebalancing as well? >> i'm grateful for the question. the recent figures did show that manufacturing was one of the faster growing sectors of our economy and i welcome that but i think what the chancellor said in his budget is we are not resting on our laurels and saying the job is done. there's more work to address the fundamental long-term weaknesses of the british economy. we need to manufacture more, export more, save more and we need to invest more. unlike the party opposite we have policies that promote all of those things. >> there's been so much noise that only from her seat but on her feet.
[laughter] >> has prime minister seen the study which shows that two-thirds of local council are either dimming are cutting their streetlights at night. and does he think that women are feeling safe in the local communities at night under his government? >> i have like all honorable members to take part in election campaigns have been lobbied on this issue on both sides of the argument. i think it is an issue for local determinations. i want to see good street lighting but we should listen to the arguments from the police and others about the effects that this has. >> i congratulate my right honorable friend on economic prosperity. [inaudible] >> we are very happy to look at the issues she raises, but the
weapons that we've used to try to help young people who don't have rich parents but who can afford, who can afford mortgage payments is help to buy because it helps them to get together that deposit of 5% deposit rather than 15 or 20% deposit to the labour party are shouting about it. they should be welcoming this. it's expanding aspirations and growth in our country but that is what they should be promoted and that is the approach we will take. >> order. >> i have to inform the house that i have received the following letter from the house. i write to inform you that i've indicated to her majesty, the queen that i wish to surrender as clark of the house at the end of august this year. i shall then have served the house for 42 years over 11 parliaments, and for the last decade at the table.
as clark of the house i've been fortunate, indeed, to the best job in the service of any parliament, indeed one of the best jobs in the world. i have been lucky enough to have been involved in most of the innovations in the procedure and business of the house over the last 10 years. whatever the attitudes of polimetrix and whatever brickbat may be thrown at it i conclude said that the house now is a more effective scrutiny or and more topical relevance and independent-minded than i have ever known it. as chief executive of the house service of some 2000 staff, i've had the great privilege of leading a remarkable group of talented people, deeply committed to the house and whatever their role here, all the rightly proud of being stewards of the central
institution in our democracy. that commitment and pride has been a feature of working like her for as long as i can remember, but in recent years it has been increasing levels of professionalism and teamwork and than ever clear focus on delivering the services required by the house and its members as well as reaching out to education and information to the world beyond westminster. i am so grateful to have had throughout my service, especially over the last three years, the support and friendship of members on all sides of the house, and especially of the occupants of the chair as well as the happy camaraderie support and counsel of my colleagues at all levels. i have spent much of my career seeking to make the house and its work and the work of its members better understood by
those whom it has served and the citizens of the united kingdom. for i believe that with understanding comes value and with valuing comes ownership. and our citizens should feel pride in the ownership of their parliament. the house of commons across the century has never expected to be popular. and, indeed, it should not cost popularity, but the work it does in calling governments to account and its role as a crucible of ideas and challenge deserves to be better known, better understood and so properly valued. so, too, does the work of individual members, the workings of the constituents, but often as the last resort of the homeless and hopeless, the people whom society has let down. this is a worthy calling and should be properly acknowledged
who is the head of intelligence, looking at the intelligence. they come to the conclusion it's alicia rhea. and then you also have the department of state telling the libbans it was sharia. none of them think it's a video. none of them. the military, the cia. the cia station chief. the state department, all of them. the facts little, mr. chairman, the facts, do not point to a video. that only comes from the white house. what was going on in the room, general? our people are under attack. people are dying. what is the military doing?
>> desperately trying to gain situational awareness in an area we had a dearth of it. >> were they moving to the sound of the gun, or sitting around waiting for the state department and hillary clinton to call them up and say, do something? what did they actually do? >> we sent the predator drone overhead to -- >> did we do enough, general? >> sir, you're a professional -- you're retired. i know you care deeply about this. what was the mood in the room, the feeling? was it to save our people? >> it was desperation to be able to -- >> what? >> desperation there to gain situational awareness and to be able to do something to save people. >> did they actually do it? did they actually do it? three actions we talk about, a fast team is not even trained to engage in a fight. the other force is coming from the united states of america. we had assets there in europe. did they actually good to the
sound of the gun? did they actually go into benghazi? >> no, sir, they did not. >> why not? >> basically, there was a lot of looking to the state department for what they wanted, and in deference to the libyan people and the sense of deference to the desires of the state department in terms of what they would like to have. >> did they ever tell you to go save the people in benghazi? >> not to my knowledge, sir. >> you didn't run to the sound of the gun. they were issuing press releases. we had americans dying. we had dead people. we had wounded people. and our military didn't try to engage in that fight. would you disagree with that? >> the gentlemen's time is expired. the gentleman may answer any other questions you didn't think you had enough time to answer
fully. >> four individuals died, sir. we obviously did not respond in time to get there. >> could we have? >> the gentleman's time is expired. go ahead. >> we may have been able to but we'll never know. >> that hearing tonight on our companion network. c-span, at 8:00 p.m. eastern, and on facebook, we're asking if the benghazi consulate attack in september of 2012 has been fully investigated. you can offer your thoughts at
>> the house of representatives this week approved two 2015 federal spending bills. next week the house takes up republican legislation to make the research and development tax credit for businesses permanent. before the house adjourned today majority leader eric cantor and steny hoyer spoke on the floor about the agenda. >> mr. speaker, on monday the house is not in session. on tuesday the house will meet
at noon for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative visits. voted will be postponed until 6:30 p.m. on friday the house witness meal at 5:00 a.m. for the legislative business. mr. speaker, the house will consider a few suspensions next week, in addition, the house will consider hr4438, the mesh resource and competitiveness act of 2014, sponsored by representative kevin brady. this bill will provide american businesses with the certainty they need to invest in good-paying middle class jobs and develop the technologies of the future. the house is also scheduled to consider resolution finding lois g. lerner, former director, exempt organizations in internal revenue service in contempt of congress for refusal to commie
with the subpoena issue -- supply with the -- comply with a subpoena. lastly consider hr10, the quality charter schools act. mr. speaker, america does not work if our children are trapped in failing schools. this bipartisan bill provides an opportunity for our children to attend schools which fostary quality learning environment, focused on to the students succeeding, and with that, i yield back. >> i that is correct the gentleman for that information with reference to the legislation for next week. he leads with a bill that is entitled the american research and competitiveness act of 2014. as the gentleman knows, we have an agenda which i talked to him about briefly. we call it, make it in america, which is about growing
manufacturing, encouraging manufacturers to return to the united states, and encouraging people when they want to go into manufacturing, to do so here in america. not only will that provide for a made in america label all over the world, but will also provide the kind of middle class jobs and opportunities we need. part of that agenda is to make permanent the research and development tax credit. this bill does that. this bill also costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $150 billion. maybe also less, over ten years. it is unpaid for. the series of bills that were passed by the ways and means committee will cost $310 billion. they're also unpaid for. i suggest to my friend -- and as he knows, i preach relatively
regularly -- one thing we in to do for the business and america is get ourselves on a fiscally sustainable path. mr. kemp offered a comp can presentsive piece of legislation, mr. leader, as you know, which i think was an honest effort but also made hard choices. it made hard choices not to increase the deficit. and, therefore, provide an offset for tax cuts. i think that is absolutely essential for us to do. this bill that we will consider next week, which is a proposition, i think, most of us support, and that is giving businesses the insurance that the research and development tax credit will in fact be available not only for one year, but for a series of years, in this case, i believe ten years. but what the business community doesn't need and what america doesn't need is making the
deficit worse. matter of fact, your party talks a lot about bringing the deficit down. this guess in exactly the opposite direction. and i think that's lamentable. i said 150. it's actually $155 billion over ten years. i would hope that the party that is demanding that unemployment insurance be paid for, that is demanding that the sustainable growth raid be paid for, -- rate be paid for, and any change in the sequester be paid for, ought to have consistency and not add $155 billion to our deficit in a vote next week on something that i think we're all for, and it is easy, mr. leader, as you well know to vote for tax cuts. easy. attacks no courage whatsoever.
i've been at this business 45 years. it's been my experience it is easy for members to vote for tax cuts. what is hard to do is to pay for the policies you adopt. this bill does not do that. this bill makes the deficit worse. exacerbates the confidence that americans have in their fiscal responsibility of their countries, and puts us in a worse place. so i would hope, mr. leader, that before this bill comes to the floor, that you and the rules committee and mr. camp, as he did in the bill he offered to this house, which was, frankly, miffed out of hand, -- disdismissed out of hand because it made tough decisions. this bill makes no tough decisions and has a tax cut and all the candy, none of the spinach. it is all good and nobody has to
pay the price. nobody has to take responsibility. i think that's lamentable and i would hope that before this bill comes to the floor, there would be a way to pay for this bill. i want to suggest to you that there is a way to pay for it. there is a way to pay nor the other extenders the committee wants and that is by passing a comprehensive immigration bill. mr. boehner indicated that was not being done because it was tough. and people didn't want to too tough things. i understand that. it's hard to do tough things. that's why they're called tough. mr. boehner now says he was kidding when he said that. my view is, he was deadly serious. and the reason that we're considering this bill next week
is because it's easy to do. the reason we're not considering comprehensive immigration reform is because it's difficult to do. but comprehensive immigration reform would pay for all of the tax cuts that are being proposed in these six extenders, and, indeed, in the -- all of the extenders proposed by the senate finance committee. they only propose that for two years, not ten years, but it would pay for all of them. in fact the cbo says if we pass comprehensive immigration reform it will mean $200 billion for next year -- excuse me -- for the next ten years and $900 billion over the next 20 years. in december, the budget committee chairs, mr. ryan and mr. murray, were able to come up with a substantial sequester replacement. we ought to be able to do that
as well. let me close this part of my comment with two quotes. one from republican secretary of the treasury, hank paulson, who said as a general rule i don't believe that tax cuts pay for themselves. and then mr. allen greenspan, who initially said, in '01 and '03, he thought the tax cuts would pay for themselves. however, upon review of those tax cuts, he came back, when he was -- in response to a question on "meet the press" from david gregory, the question was: you don't agree with the republican leaders who say tax cuts pay for themselves. mr. greenspan: they do not. so, all of your republican colleagues are being asked to
vote for $155 billion increase in the deficit, which they all say they want to bring down. i'm sure they will get up and rationalize like in 1981, 2001 and 2003 the tax cuts would magically grow the economy so they would not exacerbate the deficit. and the 33 years i've been in congress, that has not been our experience. so, mr. leader i very sincerely hope we can join together in a bipartisan way and support this legislation because it's the right thing to do in terms of growing manufacturing and it's the right thing to do in bringing down our deficit to pay for it, and i yield to my friend. >> direct your comments to the chair. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i thank the gentleman for
yielding. i would say to the gentleman, mr. speaker, that for 30 years plus, the rnd tax -- r bed tax credit has been on temporary extension. this is nothing but reflecting reality, saying that this is a very important part of incentives so that we can fulfill the mission that the gentleman is on, as well as we share, which is more manufacturing here in america. if making it in america is important, the r & d tax credit is fundamental to the mission. this has been in place for over 30 years on temporary extension. and to hold it hostage as the gentleman suggests, mr. speaker, is not the way to go about facilitating growth in our economy. and i respect the gentleman's commitment to fiscal discipline. obviously we have different
opinions about how to get to that goal. but both of us, i think, could agree, mr. speaker, that growth is something that has been too little, too tepid, and we need to return to an era in which we can see some robust growth in our economy. it will help those who are chronically unemployed. help businesses grow. it will help communities grow. families, to get by, easier so they can see a better future. this r & d tax credit is something that, as the gentleman says, he supports, and to support that means supported as it has existed but let's once and for all send a signal or -- signal of certainty this will be the policy for manufacturing ands no this country so we can
continue to innovate. i yield back. >> mr. speaker, thank the gentleman for his comments. i would say that the rationale he uses, however, is applicable to the sustainable growth rate reimbursement for doctors serbing medicare patients. we do that every year as well. and republican side of the aisle demands that be paid for. we do -- >> mr. speaker -- >> -- unemployment insurance. >> whoa at the gentleman reeled? >> i'll used. >> the difference in the sgr is we have consistently offset expenditures under sgr. this r & d tax decreed is -- tax credit. a tax credit. allowing businesses who invest to keep more investment and plow it back into resource. the precedent is not there as it is on sgr and the other items that perhaps the gentleman would opinion to.
this is important to growth. this is important to manufacturing. we should all join together and support the permanent extension of what has been in place over 30 years on extension over a dozen time. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman for his observation, mr. speaker. the other side of the aisle laments the deficit. they lament the debt. we have the debt. we have the deficit. because we don't pay for what we buy. that is why we have a debt. that is why we have a deficit. when we were in charge, we put in a pay as you go rule. that rule said, if you're going to spend money, this is essentially a tax expenditure -- it is a worthy tax expenditure, something i support. it helps to grow the economy. but it is a tax expenditure. and no one on this floor can say
that is does not make the deficit worse. no one. with anying at the of credible. -- with any degree of credible. the argument has been made the tax cuts will grow so much you won't get the deficit. that's what president reagan argued in his proponents argued in 1981. the cut encriesed to 187% under president ronald reagan. because they didn't pay for themselves. when the republicans took over, mr. speaker, they amended the rule so we didn't have to pay for things. so this bill comes to the floor without any necessity to pay for it. so we'll give a tax cut, assuming it passes, somebody's going to pay for it. my children, my grandchildren, your children, mr. speaker. they're the ones who will pay for it because we're going to make a decision, apparently, not to pay for something, that we
know is going to increase the deficit. so, the analogy, when we want things paid for, it's not always followed, mr. speaker. for instance, uninsurance, almost invariably not paid for. and almost every economist says investing in unemployment insurance grows the economy. will help grow the gdp. but we don't follow that practice here unfortunately. we have a bipartisan, paid for, unemployment insurance bill that the senate has passed. that we can't gene get to the floor -- can't even get to the floor. that paid for. grows the economy, and helps 2.5 million people who are falling through the cracks and yet we bring a bill to the floor that has $155 billion cost, we don't pay for it, and the unemployment insured 2.5 million
are ignored. mr. speaker, we don't think that policy is one that we ought to pursue, and we would hope, again, that before this bill come cans to the floor, that it is paid for. i refer to comprehensive immigration reform, mr. speaker. and i will yield to my friend if he wants to make a comment on the previous comment. >> mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. point out the last time the gentleman's party was in a majority in this house during lame duck extension we did extend the r & d tax credit unpaid for. so i hear what the gentleman is saying but would point that out for historic accuracy. i would say this, mr. speaker. i guess there may be a little bit of different view on how deficits are created. the disproportionate cause for our deficit is the fact that we
have demographics in this country, 10,000 people every day turning 65, becoming eligible for our healthcare entitlement program, and those programs are almost 50% -- the medicare program is almost 50% underfunded. that's the disproportionate cause of the deficit. we have all said you can't tax your way out of it, you can't grow your way out of it. you have to change the structure of the program. and that's something that the gentleman's party, nor the president, will agree with us on. that's the disproportionate cause of the deficit. now, an additional cause of the deficit is we don't have enough growth. we don't have revenues coming into the federal government. for some reason, there's been an acceptance around here of a new norm. a very low and tepid growth. the r & d tax credit is something that is growth-oriented. it's certainty. the gentleman said to himself, that manufacturing in america
needs the r & d tax credit. we have been allowing an r & d tax credit since 1981. so let's call it what it is and make it permanent so we can get back on the path to growth. addressing growth, drakes our unfunded liabilities connected with entitlement programs, that's the sure way to reduce deficits and reduce the debt burden. i yield back. >> mr. speaker, i'm glad to hear the gentleman point that out. i've one trying to work with the gentleman and his party for some period of time now, starting with bowl simpson and other comprehensive suggestions. as i said, mr. camp, the charm of the ways and means committee, has offered a comprehensive bill. i don't agree with some things in it, but it is an honest piece of legislation that makes the tradeoffs, the tough choices,
that need to be made. this bill does not. that is my point. lastly, mr. speaker, because i know the majority leader has another engagement -- comprehensive immigration reform. i said it scores approximately a trillion dollars positive for our economy over the next 20 years. but it's also morally the right thing to do, to fix a broken system. a system that doesn't work with which everybody agrees. i would again appeal to the majority liter, mr. peeker to bring a comprehensive immigration bill to the floor. i understand that there are many of his side of the aisle that don't agree with it. fine. vote against it. but give this house an opportunity, give the american people the opportunity, to have a comprehensive immigration bill voted in the people's house on
this floor, so that we can fix a broken system, or offer alternatives so that which is proposed by the united states senate and pass overwhelmedly by the united states senate, and if i -- the gentleman wants me to yield to him i will -- if not. yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. speaker -- >> yield my friend. >> thank the gentleman for yielding. i just respond. we have had this discussion before. the majority is in opposition to the senate bill. speaker has said as much. i've said as much. and i've also said, mr. speaker to the gentleman, to the president and others, that we have a lack of trust between this house and the white house, and i've said the president what could help is we start rebuilding the trust, which starts with an admission that it can't be my way or the highway. and it must instead by, building trust, understanding where we
can agree together. yes, we all agree, the system is broken. we have a system that is broken on the legal side and we have illegal immigration. there are things this house has done before. like a green card stapled to a diploma. but the president says we can't do something like that. we can't do something lick that without taking care of everything. and that to me, mr. speaker, is where the problem lies. there's not enough trust on the part of this -- the members of this body to think that the white house and the administration is going to implement whatever it is that we pass so instead why shouldn't we focus on where we agree and start from there? that's been the position that i've expressed to the gentleman, as well as to the administration. and so, again, i just take issue with his insist steps that somehow -- insistence that we
can do that and it will all be fixed. that's the fundamental problem here, mr. speaker, and i yield back. >> the fundamental problem is not my way to the highway, it's no way. the republican judiciary committee has passed out a number of immigration reform bills. the homeland security commitee, republican chairman, passed ounce an immigration reform bill dealing with border security. none of the build have been brought to the floor. it's not a question about liking the senate bill or trusting the president of the united states. everybody agrees, mr. speaker, the immigration system is broken. but there's no way, no bill, no option, that has been brought to this floor to fix that system, to respond to what everybody agrees is a broken system of immigration. matter of fact, mr. speaker, the prime minister of ireland
celebrated st. patrick's day here with us, at luncheon, and part of his speech was about passing comprehensive immigration reform. now, they don't have to take our bill. they don't have to take the senate bill. but, mr. speaker, the american people deserve to have a bill on the floor to fix a broken system. it's not a question of whether they trust the president. it's whether or not they trust the word of the house of representatives that it can work its will. i would hope that we could work our will on this issue. it's important for the american people. and i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman yields back. >> for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek recognition? >> i ask unanimous consent that the -- immediate on tuesday, may 6, 2014, when it up shall convene at noon for morning hour